Textkit Logo

tollere: to life up, to destroy

Here's where you can discuss all things Latin. Use this board to ask questions about grammar, discuss learning strategies, get translation help and more!

Moderator: thesaurus

tollere: to life up, to destroy

Postby quickly » Tue Aug 11, 2009 12:08 pm

I can use a verb such as legere, etc. to describe the act of "reading" in two separate manners. Is it possible to do something similar with a verb such as tollere, e.g.:

ad caelo (1st ACC) vocem meam sustuli aspectus perterrenti causa et, nulla exauditione audiente, (X) (2nd ACC) (virum, urbem, et ceteri).
I lifted up my voice to heaven on account of the terrifying sight, and hearing no reply to my prayer, (X) (destroyed the man, destroyed the city, etc.)

Or with legere (which Wheelock's tells me can mean both "to read" and "to choose"):

conditionem leget et itaque viros.
I will read the contract and choose the men accordingly.

Is there a reason why this wouldn't work?
Last edited by quickly on Tue Aug 11, 2009 6:53 pm, edited 2 times in total.
quickly
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 54
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 9:18 pm

Re: tollere: to life up, to destroy

Postby adrianus » Tue Aug 11, 2009 4:03 pm

Salve quickly/celeriter

A pun let's call this,—in De Oratore, IV, Cicero says this particular sort is actually called a "transference" [of thought or meaning, I suppose] since you're talking about sense variations in one word, not between words with slight variations in sound,—anyway, a pun draws attention to itself, so hopefully how you use it is thought provoking or funny. Either sentence can be said, I think, but the first remains essentially ambiguous in latin. The second sentence maybe is better because it's pithy and less ambiguous, but, unless it's generalised to say something more significant, I think it's maybe self-serving.

Paromasia seu adnominatio,—rectiùs traductio, secundum Ciceronem in libro quarto operis De Oratore nomine, quià variationem sonoris inter verbos requirit paromasia,—lectores attentos ad se reddit, quâ ratione aut cogitabundum aut jocosum usum tuum illius esse oportet. Utram sententiam dici potes, ut opinor. Prima ambigua substantialiter manet. Melior secunda, meâ sententiâ, quià nervosa ac minùs ambigua, at optimum exemplum quod maximè aptet, ne demùm traductio ibi nullam rem ultra se ipsam valeat.
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Re: tollere: to life up, to destroy

Postby quickly » Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:31 pm

"hopefully how you use it is thought provoking or funny...I think it's maybe self-serving."

I think you are correct. Your comment is probably true due to the fact that I like the verb tollere (due to its perfect passive participle, having been imbued by Hegel through someLatin-educated translator), and Wheelock's exercises can have surprisingly different results depending on which sense of tollere one chooses.

puto responsum tuum rectum esse. adnotamentum tuum verum probabiliter est amoris meis causa verbo 'tollere' (e participio passivo perfecto, quod ab Hegel cum interpretatione novo permatum est), ac exercitia "Veeloka" eventa improvisum variaque habere possunt - si unus alia interpretationem "tollenti" (=of tollere?) legit. (excuse the bad Latin. It's my best.)

It's nice to know it works, thought, which was my main question: can a verb with two senses be used with two accusative objects, each taking on a different sense (some form of zeugma, I assume).
quickly
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 54
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 9:18 pm

Re: tollere: to life up, to destroy

Postby adrianus » Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:38 pm

I think putting "vocem meam" at the start to balance "urbem" at the end helps the use of zeugma in the sentence. "Vocem meam ad caelum aspectûs perterrentis causâ sustuli, et, nullâ exauditione auditâ, virum/urbem." But I still think it's too ambiguous. Saying "virum" you might understand "praise", saying "urbem" you might understand "removal". But I think you're right, it's a valid form for you to use.

I think what you spot about the verbs "tollere" and "lego" is very interesting, because most alternative verb senses, I think, are creative/metaphorical extensions, not true departures in meaning or even contradictions. And you like "tollere" because of the weird and contradictory connection between elevation and removal/absence in "sublation" (after Hegel). That is curious, sure.

[By the way, please note the health warning at the bottom of my posts and be on guard, quickly.]

Quod "virum/urbem" in fine sententiae habes, zeugma clariùs videbitur, up opinor, si "vocem meam" in initium sententiae pones. Continuò autem hîc ambiguitatem sententiae dubito, quià "virum" in dicendo laudis sensum intellegere potes, "urbem" detractionis. Rectè autem dicis, formam adhibere tibi licet.

Quod de verbis "tollere" "legere" videlicet animadvertis valdè interest, quià vulgò exstant nexus inter homonymos qui generis metaphorici sunt, rarissimè desunt nexus, nunquam ferè contradicunt sensus. Et tu, unâ cum Hegel, "tollere" verbo ut alienum fruaris, quod sensus contradicentes elevationis et detractionis continet et cui conceptus sublationis inhaeret. Mirum, certé.

[Obiter, caveas, quickly/celeriter. Cura ut monitionem valetudinariam sub omnibus epistolis meis legas.]
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm


Return to Learning Latin

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 86 guests